DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeAnselmo Reyes IJ,Roger Giles IJ,Kannan Ramesh J
Judgment Date03 March 2020
Date03 March 2020
Docket NumberSuit No 3 of 2017

[2020] SGHC(I) 7

Singapore International Commercial Court

Kannan Ramesh J, Roger Giles IJ and Anselmo Reyes IJ

Suit No 3 of 2017

DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd
and
Kiri Industries Ltd and others

Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy SC, Teng Po YewandEunice Lau Guan Ting (Liu Guanting) (Drew & Napier LLC) for the plaintiff;

Dinesh Dhillon Singh, Margaret Joan Ling Wei Wei, Lim Dao Kai, Teh Shi YingandLing Ying Ming, Daniel (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the defendants.

Case(s) referred to

B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] 5 SLR 28 (folld)

CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd [2018] 4 SLR 38 (refd)

DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2020] 3 SLR 42 (refd)

Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623; [2008] 2 SLR 623 (refd)

Legislation referred to

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 110 r 46

Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs in Singapore International Commercial Court cases — Whether reference to Appendix G of Supreme Court Practice Directions was to be made in calculating reasonable costs — Order 110 r 46 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

Damages — Quantum — Interest on damages — Whether interest on damages should run from time of accrual of loss or later date such as from commencement of proceedings — How interest was to be calculated where loss accrued over period of time — Whether there was unwarranted delay by plaintiff and how this affected date for calculating interest on damages

Facts

The plaintiff, DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“DyStar”), was a joint venture company in the dye industry. It was a joint venture between Kiri Industries Limited (“Kiri”), the first defendant in the present suit, and Senda International Capital Limited (“Senda”), the first defendant in the related suit SIC/S 4/2017. Collectively, Kiri and Senda owned substantially the entire shareholding in DyStar. Senda was the minority shareholder, and suit SIC/S 4/2017 was a minority oppression suit brought by Kiri against Senda.

In DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd[2018] 5 SLR 1 and Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd[2019] 2 SLR 1, it was held that Kiri had breached non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in the agreement governing the conduct of the joint venture. Kiri's breaches related to three customers to whom DyStar sold dyes: FOTL in Morocco; Hayleys in Sri Lanka; and Brandix also in Sri Lanka. Interlocutory judgment was entered in favour of DyStar for damages to be assessed.

Subsequently, in DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd[2020] 3 SLR 42, the court decided the bases of the assessment of damages for the breaches. The parties were directed to prepare an agreed statement of damages calculated in conformity with the court's reasons, together with interest. The court also directed the exchange of written submissions on costs, with costs to be determined on the basis of the written submissions.

The calculation of damages was agreed, but there was disagreement over the date from which interest would run: Kiri said only from the date of commencement of the proceedings, whereas DyStar said from the time of accrual of loss.

Held:

(1) The court's discretion to grant pre-judgment interest was a wide one. Generally, interest on damages should run from the time of accrual of loss, but an established circumstance under which a later date would be appropriate was unwarranted delay in commencing proceedings: at [4].

(2) In the present case, the date of accrual of loss was the appropriate date for calculation of interest. There was no unwarranted delay. The breaches that occurred vis-à-vis the three DyStar customers were breaches occurring over a period of time. The earliest breaches were some years before the commencement of the proceedings, but extended until the commencement of the proceedings and thereafter. The other breaches were on dates relatively proximate to the commencement of proceedings: at [5] and [8].

(3) While Kiri contended that DyStar's claim against it was taken in retaliation to the minority oppression suit brought against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kiri Industries Ltd v DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 19 October 2020
    ...of damages in respect of Hayleys. [Editorial note: The decisions from which these appeals arose are reported at [2020] 3 SLR 42 and [2020] 4 SLR 28.] Held, allowing the appeal: (1) The court did not accept the appellants' submission that Kiri was selling into a different, lower quality mark......
  • Byl v Byn
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 May 2020
    ...CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd [2018] 4 SLR 38 (folld) DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2020] 4 SLR 28 (refd) Legislation referred to Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 59, O 110 r 46 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 R......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT